vadim sharifijanov
Registered User
- Oct 10, 2007
- 29,747
- 17,933
Nobody wore #2 for over 2.5 seasons after Hamhuis left, as an example.
i never could tell if 17 on vrbata and 9 on prust were trolling the player or trolling us
Nobody wore #2 for over 2.5 seasons after Hamhuis left, as an example.
huh?
Gillis has made it very clear on multiple occasions he wanted to rebuild and that forward looking outlook led to him being fired.
where have you been?
Had no issue with those. Kassian wasn’t anything special here and Kesler left on bad terms.i never could tell if 17 on vrbata and 9 on prust were trolling the player or trolling us
perhaps I'm reading what you've written wrong but are you saying Gillis did not want a rebuild and Benning did?
Character guy Prust what a low point in franchise historyI was actually a Benning apologist on here in 2015. Was a huge Bonino and Vrbata fan. The 2015 draft / free agency made me completely switch. That Kassian trade was absolutely laughable. When that Bonino trade went down I thought Benning was learning impaired.
Scored 30+ goals riding shotgun with the Sedins.Had no issue with those. Kassian wasn’t anything special here and Kesler left on bad terms.
Vrbata played well in stretches as well.
The Benn Tanev thing is so weird.
I don't think there actually saying this, I might be wrong.
Can you provide a specific example on what someone said to prove your argument is valid?
Gaudette was given it in exchange for having to give up #88 to Schmidt, which, while questionable, is fair IMO.In that vein, maybe Benn did it to make sure management remembered Tanev, but why was Benn able to grab Tanev's number immediately? On the other hand, maybe management did it to disrespect Tanev? Anyway, I thought there was some sort of honour system to delay players grabbing long serving, but departed, player's numbers?
i just gave you exactly the kind of evidence you use to hang everything on benning. there is also ample evidence over the years that aquaman sets direction then keeps benning on a short leash and is a huge hockey fan and involved with decisions from the beginning. the hamhuis fiasco as related by botchford is a great example. according to botchford, benning had a deal with dallas, but aquaman made him go back for more, and dallas made a trade elsewhere.
you can posture all you want, of course, but i think anyone paying attention would think it is ridiculous for you to pretend you believe that benning has autonomy in making major signings of players for this team.
These are just a couple examples from this thread alone where you shifted the blame to the owner, but I don't remember these brought up at the time, and definitely not when the team was winning.why do you assume it was not aquaman's idea in the first place? logic dictates benning would have been fired for that crazy risky signing unless ownership had ownership of it. so you are being illogical.
not to mention, shiny new toys every year, boundary pushing, and risk taking are all hallmarks of aquaman's entire period of ownership, not just the benning period.
they are also hallmarks of decision making by rich kids enjoying life on daddy's money.
That's an interesting observation.i never could tell if 17 on vrbata and 9 on prust were trolling the player or trolling us
Tanev didn’t play for this team and the number wasn’t retired so this doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.Gaudette was given it in exchange for having to give up #88 to Schmidt, which, while questionable, is fair IMO.
No other way Tanev's number should have been offered to anyone so soon.
What adds to it even more is that Benn saw Gaudette get it, and was like no kid give it here (apparently he paid up for it so maybe Gauds is wearing a Rolex on each wrist and that's why he's clunking around). I don't know who Benn thinks he is trying to make a demand like that though as a glorified tweener of a bottom pairing/#7 dman. Schmidt asking for someone else's number is one thing, but Jordie freaking Benn? Get real
This is also partly why the excuse that Benning was forced by Aquilini to go after certain targets in UFA is hard to believe. You think the owner would've willingly signed off on it had he known the risk and we'd done our due diligence? This is 100% on Jimbo.The Ferland disaster signing has kind of gone off the radar of fans with his LTIR status, but you can be pretty sure Aquilini hasn't forgotten that he's paying $12 million for an uninsurable player not to play for the next 4 years.
Elias Pettersson said no way is he taking #14 because of Alex Burrows who was no longer on the team. Guys respect the vetsTanev didn’t play for this team and the number wasn’t retired so this doesn’t seem like a big deal to me.
listening to ferraro on 1040. they ask him about benning saying he ran out of time. “well [pauses] that doesn’t seem very organized [stutters, not sure what else you can say]”
lol
Player Discussion - Loui Eriksson, Pt. II
"If Gillis and his Amateur Scouting had drafted competently from 2008-2013, then our needs on RD likely would have been met"
Benning brought in Gudbranson, and this was the justification.
Somehow Gillis' weakness in drafting has caused Benning to become a shitty talent evaluator.
Fair enough, you're right on that however if you need to go on an old thread from few years ago. That mean there not many people actually saying that.
Blaming Gillis on a specific Benning transaction make no sense. However most are not actually saying that, there saying because of Gillis bad drafting, that is one of the reason why Canucks missed the playoffs during that stretch. Totally different.
Have a good night
Yeah, like we've all heard of teams quitting on the coach before. But a GM? That's... basically unprecedented.seriously though i literally can't think of a time when a team quit on its GM
has this ever happened before?
This is also partly why the excuse that Benning was forced by Aquilini to go after certain targets in UFA is hard to believe. You think the owner would've willingly signed off on it had he known the risk and we'd done our due diligence? This is 100% on Jimbo.
These are just a couple examples from this thread alone where you shifted the blame to the owner, but I don't remember these brought up at the time, and definitely not when the team was winning.
I also doubt any sane business person being ok to expose himself willingly to an uninsurable contract in hockey. Say what you will about Aquilini, but being the one who initiated the dumb idea of commiting $12m to an injury prone player without the ability to insure against it is a stretch to me.
I also find it interesting that you are referencing Botch here, but outright dismiss it when he reported a high pick for Ryan Miller was on the table.
Not even close to as bad but nice tryAnd surrounded it with similar crap to the Oilers and Sabres
Aqua is absolutely a problem, the biggest problem, and the most unsolveable problem.
And Aqua's interference does make it hard to judge Benning in some ways. There are rumours that Aqua likes to play GM and forces certain signings. There are only two possible explanations for why Benning wasn't fired a long time ago and this is one of them. The other is that Aqua's IQ matches Bennings. I lean towards the latter personally, because this also explains the Gillis issues, because at a certain gap in IQ communication breaks down.
And it wasn't just Benning, it was Gillis too. There are lots of rumours at the time that Gillis lost autonomy after 2011. Torts wasn't Gillis' choice for a coach, aqua blocked a Kesler trade to Pittsburgh, those are as validated as the Benning trades that didn't happen in 2015 1st for Lucic and Horvat+5th overall for Subban, etc. You could see it at the time too if you were reading between the lines.
But placing every Benning error on aqua, or placing specifics like the lack of communication with the guys over this summer, that's a pretty big stretch and the rumour mill hasn't been circulating on that as far as I've seen. That fits Bennings MO of only being able to do one thing at a time to a tee and he was chasing his tail on OEL all summer, I don't see aqua interference as necessary to explain the communication breakdown with the free agents. Same with the Ferland deal.
The ownership problem is just not a problem you can do anything about because owners are around forever unlike GM's who always have a shelf life. The best you can hope for is that the next GM has the guts to put aqua in his place. So it's more or less not that useful for discussion of management and all we can really do is roast Benning for the specifics of his transactions and inaction as opposed to general strategy.